Phil Gramm

Mr. GRAMM

Mr. GRAMM. Reserving the right to object, I think we are about to work out an agreement here, Mr. President, that would end our debate, order a rollcall at some time in the future, and finish up this matter. I think we can do that very quickly, and then the Senator could be recognized to offer an amendment, and this would be out of the way.

Mr. GRAMM. I would be willing to yield to my colleague.

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, before Senator Hatfield leaves, I am through debating. I think we made the points. I do not know if the Senator from Pennsylvania is finished or not. But if he is, perhaps we could go ahead. I would like to have 1 or 2 minutes to sort of sum up, and we could go ahead and vote.

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, on that basis, let me sum up. Again, there are a lot of issues that have been raised here. The provision for the emergency designation was in the 1990 budget summit agreement. I participated in those negotiations. I opposed this provision. I voted against that summit agreement--not that that is of any relevance here. Here is the point. There are some emergencies under some circumstances that create a situation where there is not a readily available option to finance. We could have funded the Civil War by offsetting expenditures and by raising taxes. We decided not to do it that way. We might have funded World War II that way. We decided not to because of the magnitude of the undertaking. But I remind my colleagues, we are spending $1.6 trillion a year. We are getting ready to add $1.2 billion of new spending declared an emergency. We can avoid that by simply cutting across the board by .53 percent, or a penny for every $2 we spend on nondefense discretionary programs. I am very proud of the fact that in 1995, under the leadership of Senator Hatfield as our new chairman, we did not have a need for emergency designations. We did not, through supplementals, raise the deficit. In fact, we had rescissions bigger than the new spending we had. It is not as if we have never sinned before, but we were on such a roll from 1995 under the leadership of our great chairman that I was hoping that we might stay on the straight and narrow and avoid this movement back to our old ways. So, I do not see this as a big amendment in terms of its impact; $1.2 billion for anybody, or any group of people of any reasonable size, that would be an unbelievable amount of money. For the Federal Government, it is basically one penny out of every $2 we spend on nondefense discretionary programs. But why not take a stand here, keep the record of this new Congress with the Republican majority, a perfect record in that we have written a budget. The President vetoed it. But we have lived by it. We have not used an emergency declaration to spend money when we had the alternative to pay for it. It is a record I am proud of. It is one I want to keep. And, most importantly, despite all of the arguments that can be made, it is the right thing to do. This is the right thing to do. This is a manageable emergency. There is no reason that a country that spends $1.6 trillion a year cannot manage an emergency of $1.2 billion. This is a manageable amount. And what we are doing here is setting a precedent that will be followed, if we set it here. I would like to stay with our record in 1995, stay with our budget, not declare this emergency, and pay for this modest amount of money as compared to the Federal budget. We are capable of doing it. It is the right thing to do, and I urge my colleagues to do it. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, the Chair had already ruled. If I might say to my colleague, all I did was take out a paragraph that created a point of order. It did not change the nature of the amendment in any way.

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to modify my amendment. I send the modification to the desk.

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. GRAMM. What I would do is extend the funds. And for those 2 days I would take the funds out of the funding to be spent on those last 2 days. Then I would take the additional funding--since we are not going to be able to spend it all out in 2 days, I would take the spend-out rate, and for those first 2 days I would take the amount to be spent and take it from the overall Government operations of those 2 days. And then, as it is spent out in the new fiscal year, I would take it from that.

Mr. GRAMM. What would I do if it occurred on that date?

Mr. GRAMM. I am very happy to.

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, it seems to me in listening to this argument that our dear colleague from Oregon, who has great intellectual powers, has been forced to strain them to defend his position on this amendment. I am not going to get into a lengthy response on each and every point, but there are some I would like to make. If every penny that we have cut out of defense since 1985 had gone to deficit reduction, we would have a balanced budget today. Second, no one is proposing that we not provide flood relief. Nobody is making that proposal. What we are saying is, we can provide it, but pay for it. There is no doubt about the fact that a lot of families, when Johnny falls down the steps and breaks his arm, they put it on the credit card. The difference is, 30 days later they get the bill. They have to either pay it or come up with permanent financing. Their ability to get financing, other than rolling it on their credit card at astronomical interest rates, depends on a plan to pay it back. We have not paid back a net penny of borrowing since Eisenhower was President of the United States. That has been a long time. That has been too long. In terms of the gulf war, we actually collected more money from our allies than we spent--probably the only war in history where that was the case. Obviously, when we are talking about the loss of American life, we are talking about a loss that can never be paid back, but I was not talking about the Persian Gulf war here. I am talking about the fact that in this very bill we increase defense spending, but we offset it by cutting other programs, something we did not do for this $1.2 billion. In terms of going back and cutting programs across the board, there is no doubt about the fact that if the committee had offset this increase in spending, they could have done it more efficiently than the across-the-board cut. Let me say that without the emergency designation, the law would apply an across-the-board cut. Let me also say this is a procedure that we have used many times. If a better alternative can be found in conference, it can be substituted. The point still comes back to not whether we should help flood victims, but should we pay for the assistance or should we simply add it to the debt? Do we simply spend more and more money every time something happens? Or do we say, ``There has been a tragedy in the country. We have to do something to help. What we are going to do is take money away from programs that we would have spent the money on that were a lower priority so that we can fund this emergency assistance.'' The issue here is simply the issue of deficits, and no matter what kind of arguments are made, no matter what specter is held up about helping needy people, no matter what discussion occurs on defense, the bottom line is that we are going to have a vote here on $1.2 billion of additional deficit spending. Are you for it, or are you against it? I am against it. I want to provide the money to try to help people who have suffered from floods, people who have suffered from fires, people who have suffered from emergency situations that they had no control over. But I want to pay for it, and I want to pay for it by cutting other Government programs. That is the prudent policy. That is the way, ultimately, in the real world, things have to operate. We have been divorced from the real world for too long, and that is why we have not paid off a net penny of national debt in any year since Eisenhower was President of the United States. It seems to me that if we continue this process, people are going to be here 30 years from now who are going to be making the same statement. So I think the choice is clear, and I hope people will make the choice to pay for it--to help, but pay for it. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, let me ask our colleague who has the preponderance of time to yield me 5 minutes to respond.

Mr. GRAMM. Madam President, the Senator cannot be heard.

Mr. GRAMM

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I hope nobody is confused by the statement that was just made. When we took a time out in April of 1995, we did not take all the money away from the Fish and Wildlife Service. We left them the money to continue to trample on private property and the rights of citizens and to continue to fail to look at reason, responsibility, and cost and benefits. But we simply took away the right for them 3 years after the law had expired to continue to limit jobs, growth and opportunity in America. The only reason the Senator from Texas added a dollar in her amendment was because this is an appropriations bill and it was strictly a technicality. The Senators amendment does not reduce the $750,000 available. So I hope no one is confused.

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I am very happy to be here to support my colleague from Texas. I think on this issue she is absolutely right. Let me explain why. In 1973, we passed the Endangered Species Act. We have gone back periodically and rewritten that law, and in the last rewriting we put in a date by which the law had to be updated in order to still have force, a sunsetting provision. The logic of the sunsetting provision was to assure that periodically as situations changed, such as the power of the bureaucracy to expand the law beyond any limit anyone foresaw when the law was written, that by that date we were going to have to go back and rewrite the law or it was going to stop having any force of law. That act expired in 1992. This is 1996. For 4 years, we have had no Endangered Species Act because the law is sunset. Granted, we have continued to allow it to operate by providing funds for that purpose. But the whole purpose of sunsetting is to modernize legislation to reflect the new reality. Then in April 1995 we took a time out. This time out basically said, ``It has been 3 years since this law expired.'' We should not allow the Fish and Wildlife Service to continue to designate endangered species without any limit, without any congressional check, until this law is reauthorized. That was eminently reasonable. It was adopted right here on the floor of the U.S. Senate, and it became the law of the land. Now we have an effort by Senator Reid to go back and, in essence, to make the endangered species law a law that operates in perpetuity where there is no requirement that it be modernized and where it can simply continue to do things like the effort by U.S. Fish and Wildlife to designate 33 counties in central Texas as being affected by an endangered species called the Golden Cheek Warbler. In the face of widespread opposition in Texas, they backed off. But the point is we have a right to say that when Congress wrote this law, it wanted the right to periodically review it. That time for review occurred 4 years ago. I think the Senator from Texas, Senator Hutchison, has proposed a reasonable compromise that will allow emergency designations and allow us to rewrite this law and make changes that the American people clearly want but which will put the pressure on those whose viewpoint is a minority viewpoint. This is not just about endangered species. This is about whether or not we are going to let a small group of people who do not agree with the mandate of the 1994 election ride roughshod over that mandate by extending a law which expired 4 years ago and by allowing bureaucrats to continue to not consider cost and benefits. Everybody in the Senate knows that if we rewrite the Endangered Species Act in this Congress, there are going to be dramatic changes in it. If the underlying Reid amendment which Senator Hutchison has amended is adopted and becomes law, we will not rewrite the Endangered Species Act--and everybody knows it. As a result, even though the majority of the American people and the majority of the Members of Congress are ready to make the changes, even though the law has expired, we will end up continuing to expand the power of the Federal bureaucracy. I want to urge my colleagues to support the Hutchison amendment. Let me also say that, if the underlying Reid amendment is attached to this bill, I intend to oppose this bill and I intend to vigorously fight its adoption. I think it would be an absolute outrage if we went back now and eliminated the time out we declared in April 1995 on a law which expired 4 years ago. I yield the floor. Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.

Mr. GRAMM

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, 50 years ago today Winston Churchill came to America to a tiny college in the middle of the Midwest--to Westminster College--and gave a speech that awakened America and the world to a crisis. We all know that speech. We all remember it from our childhood, or reading about it in history books. He talked about the descending of an iron curtain across the face of Europe. And, while the cold war was already underway, that speech probably more than anything else awakened America and the world to the Soviet threat. We started to respond with the policy of containment. We responded by building up NATO and SEATO. We responded by fighting in Korea and Vietnam. We responded with the Marshall plan and the Truman plan to expand trade and work toward free trade. Our policies won the cold war, tore down the Berlin Wall, liberated Eastern Europe, and transformed the Soviet Union. We won one of the greatest victories in the history of mankind. But there still is important unfinished business from the cold war. Communist China is in transition, and so is Vietnam. But there are two Communist regimes on this planet that are totally unchanged, that still believe in Marxism and Leninism, that still are committed to everything that we oppose in the world. One of those regimes is the military dictatorship in North Korea. The other is Fidel Castro's Cuba. For 3 years, Bill Clinton has coddled both of those regimes. We have a policy in place today to give, through an international consortium, $4 billion to North Korea to build for them two nuclear powerplants even though there is no evidence whatsoever that either of the existing nuclear powerplants in North Korea was ever used to generate a watt of electricity or ever had any purpose other than building nuclear weapons. We are today supplying oil through that consortium to North Korea and propping up a Communist regime. President Clinton for 3 years has coddled Fidel Castro. He announced a policy last year that enforced the imprisonment of the Cuban people-- that actually used the United States Navy to enforce the imprisonment of the Cuban people. The United States Navy was given the assignment by the President of the United States to pick up people who risk their lives to flee Communist oppression from Cuba, put them in American naval vessels, and then turn those people back over to Fidel Castro. The President set out a policy that opened the door for nongovernment organizations to establish a presence in Cuba and in the process started what Fidel Castro believed, and the world believed, was a movement toward normalization. Voices were raised in Congress in opposition to the President's policy. Both the distinguished Senator from Georgia and I spoke out against it, as did many others. We now see the fruit of that policy, and the fruit of that policy is that Fidel Castro brutally murdered four Americans. We have the tapes of the communications from the MiG's as they talked to their home base, identifying civilian planes with no armament. We have the tapes of those conversations when they then boasted how they were going to destroy these planes. On an order from their home base, they fired the missiles that killed four American citizens. We are now considering a bill to change our relationship with Castro's Cuba and bring it back to what it has always been; that is, a policy of strong opposition.

Mr. GRAMM. All right. Mr. GRAMM addressed the Chair.

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, our position expressed with this bill goes back to what our position has been with regard to Fidel Castro since the early days of that brutal regime. Our position is founded on the recognition that Fidel Castro is a brutal dictator and murderer and that his regime in Cuba must end. Our position under Democrat and Republican administrations has always been--until the Clinton administration--a commitment to the isolation of Castro's Cuba, and a commitment to seeing the overthrow of Fidel Castro and his accomplices. Today with this bill, we restore that policy and we hit Fidel Castro where it hurts the most. We hit him in the pocketbook. We allow Americans to sue those who buy their property stolen by Castro, to sue those who are trafficking in stolen goods. With this bill we allow Americans to sue international interests in American courts to recover damages. The effective result of that will be that private investors will think two and three times before they bring their investment money to Castro's Cuba. Let me also say, Mr. President, that there is more that we can do. I think the President ought to act unilaterally to deny Americans the ability to send money to Castro's Cuba. While it is true that allowing people to send money to their relatives provides some temporary assistance to them, some relief to them, those funds, that hard currency also props up Castro's Cuba, allowing Castro to continue his imprisonment of the people. It prolongs their misery, and in my opinion that should be ended. I believe that we should demand that Cuba turn over the two pilots who fired the missiles, turn over the air traffic controller who gave the order to fire, and turn over anyone in the chain of command who was engaged in giving the orders or carrying those orders that killed four Americans. As we did in Iraq, as we have done in Bosnia, I think we need to declare a no-fly zone over Cuba for military aircraft until those people are turned over, and I think we ought to enforce that no- fly zone. I believe we need to recommit ourselves to the principle that Fidel Castro and his regime will not survive the end of the 20th century. What a terrible tragedy it would be if this tidal wave of freedom which has covered the planet is allowed to subside before it drowns Fidel Castro. I think we have in these brutal murders a new example to remind us again of who Fidel Castro is and what he stands for, and I believe we should dedicate ourselves to the principle that the 20th century will not end and find the Castro dictatorship intact in Cuba. This bill is a step forward. I urge the President to take other actions, such as to cut off cash transfers to Cuba by American citizens, to demand that the pilots and the air traffic controllers who were responsible for the death of four Americans be turned over, along with anyone in the chain of command who gave or carried out those orders. I think we ought to enforce that with a no-fly zone. I congratulate our colleagues from Georgia and North Carolina for their leadership on this bill. This is long overdue. We should have made this bill the law of the land last year. I remind my colleagues and the American people that up until the last few days President Clinton fought this bill and threatened to veto this bill. He thought his policy of coddling Fidel Castro was working. He thought a movement toward normalization of relations with Castro's Cuba could be successful. We now know what the fruits of that policy were: death for four Americans. I say enough is enough. Let us restore freedom and democracy to Cuba. Let us do it in this century. Starting with this bill let us get serious. I thank our colleague for yielding to me.

Mr. GRAMM. Can we make that 10?

Mr. GRAMM

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I am honored today to recognize a momentous occasion in the history of the great State which I have the privilege to represent, the proud Lone Star State of Texas. This month we recognize and celebrate Texas' statehood sesquicentennial, 150 years during which we have been blessed and have prospered. The spirit of Texas has been evident since our earliest days, when we were conceived in the eternal struggle for freedom. The men and women of Texas have an innate and inherent commitment to God and country, and even our flag displays a single star--our people have always looked to the Heavens. No utterance in our State's history better represents the spirit, virtue, and values of Texas, then or now, than the remarkable letter written on February 24, 1836, by William Barret Travis at the Alamo: To the People of Texas and all Americans in the world-- Fellow citizens and compatriots-- I am besieged, by a thousand or more of the Mexicans under Santa Anna--I have sustained a continual Bombardment and cannonade for 24 hours and have not lost a man--The enemy has demanded a surrender at discretion; otherwise, the garrison are to be put to the sword, if the fort is taken--I have answered the demands with a cannon shot, and our flag still waves proudly from the wall--I shall never surrender or retreat. Then, I call on you in the name of Liberty, or patriotism and of everything dear to the American character, to come to our aid, with all dispatch--The enemy is receiving reinforcements daily and will no doubt increase to three or four thousand in four or five days. If this call is neglected, I am determined to sustain myself as long as possible and die like a soldier who never forgets what is due to his own honor and that of his country--Victory or Death. William Barret Travis, Lieutenant Colonel Commandant. Colonel Travis' letter captures the heart and soul of the people of Texas, and I am honored to recognize the statehood sesquicentennial of my beloved Texas.

Mr. GRAMM

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, when we ask men and women to serve in our Nation's Armed Forces, we make them certain promises. One of the most important is the promise that, upon the retirement of those who serve 20 years or more, a graceful nation will make health care available to them for the rest of their lives. Unfortunately, for many 65-and-over military retirees, promises are being broken. When the military's Civilian Health and Medical Program of the U.S. [CHAMPUS] was established in 1966, just 1 year after Medicare, 65-and- over military retires were excluded from CHAMPUS because it was felt they could receive care on a space-available basis from local military hospitals and they would not require health care services from the private medical community. For many years, there were few problems and plenty of available space, but as military bases and their hospitals have closed, more and more retirees are finding it increasingly difficult to receive the care they have been promised. For many, being denied access to the local base hospital means they are completely reliant on Medicare. While Medicare is a valuable program that serves millions of Americans well, it was not designed as compensation for service to our country. Our military retirees, how- ever, have all served our Nation for a minimum of 20 years, and many for 30 years or more. With all the sacrifices they have made during their careers, I believe military retirees clearly have earned the benefits that they were promised. While many health care options have been discussed that would appropriately reward the contributions of our military retirees, at a minimum they ought to be able to use their Medicare reimbursement eligibility wherever they choose, including the military health system. Our military treatment facilities also ought to be able to accept Medicare reimbursement and serve as Medicare providers for people who are eligible for both Medicare and for care in the military treatment system. For this reason, today I am joined by Senators Inouye, McCain, Hutchison, and Inhofe in introducing a bill to establish a 2-year demonstration project that will allow Medicare to reimburse the Defense Department for health care services provided to Medicare-eligible beneficiaries who are also eligible to receive care in military treatment facilities. Called subvention. Medicare reimbursement to military treatment facilities has long been a priority of military retirees, and I believe passing this bill and getting this project under way should be a top priority for the Congress. I am aware that some of my colleagues have also wrestled with this problem and have tried many different ways to establish a subvention program. As I introduce this bill, the Senate Armed Services Committee is working with the Pentagon and the Health Care Financing Administration [HCFA] to outline a demonstration project. In the House of Representatives, Congressman Joel Hefley has introduced a bill to begin a subvention effort. While my subvention project is different than these, I believe it complements their efforts. This program will not increase the cost to the taxpayer because it will ensure that DOD cannot shift costs to HCFA, and that the total Medicare cost to HCFA will not increase. In fact, I believe subvention could actually save money. The Retired Officers Association, in their letter to me of December 15, 1995, reports that: Using 1995 as a baseline, the eligible Medicare population will grow by 1.6 million beneficiaries by 2000. This will increase Medicare's cost by $7.7 billion if new beneficiaries rely on Medicare as their sole source of care. But, with subvention and DOD's 7 percent discount to the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA), the aggregate cost increase can be reduced by $361 million over that same time frame. Because health care will be managed, further savings could be realized which could be passed on by DOD to Medicare through reduced discounts. This legislation is strongly supported by many military and veterans organizations. I would ask unanimous consent to include in the Record 18 statements of support from the following groups: The Retired Officers Association, National Association for Uniformed Services, Air Force Association, National Military Families Association, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, The American Legion, The Retired Enlisted Association, Reserve Officers Association of the United States, Military Service Coalition of Austin (Texas), Association of the United States Army, Air Force Sergeants Association, Non Commissioned Officers Association of the United States of America, United States Army Warrant Officers Association, Chief Warrant and Warrant Officers Association United States Coast Guard, Naval Reserve Association, Naval Enlisted Reserve Association, Association of Military Surgeons of the United States, and Jewish War Veterans of the United States of America.

Mr. GRAMM

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I rise to oppose sending American troops to Bosnia. The Dole resolution asks us to agree to, support, and expand the mission that the President has subscribed to in Bosnia. I intend to oppose that resolution because I think that the President's mission is deeply flawed. I think we are making a mistake, and I intend to make it very clear that I oppose the policy we have undertaken with respect to Bosnia. What we are being asked to support is the sending of American troops into the line of fire as a buffer force between two warring factions which have broken every cease-fire and violated every treaty over the past 500 years. Historically, in our country, we have set high standards for sending Americans into harm's way. Each of us has set standards a little differently, but in general, we have all tried to ask ourselves, ``Do we have a vital national security interest?'' Our President has, for 3 years, tried to make the case that we have a vital national security interest in Bosnia. I submit that the President has failed, not because he is not a great salesman, but because he has no product to sell. What is happening in Bosnia is terrible. Many Members of the Senate have been to the Bosnian region. Every American has seen on television what is happening there and we are all outraged about it. But when you get down to the bottom line, whether we have a vital national security interest in Bosnia, the answer is clearly no. It seems to me the second question we have to ask ourselves is, ``Will our intervention be decisive in promoting the objectives we seek?'' It is one thing to have good intentions and pure motives, but it is another thing to have a plan that would allow you to put those good intentions and pure motives into force. I see no evidence, whatsoever, to substantiate the claim that our intervention, as a buffer force between warring factions in Bosnia, is going to be decisive in promoting the objective we seek. I have always tried to apply a third test in committing Americans to combat and harm's way, a test which has come about in my own mind because I represent a large State of over 18 million people. Texas has a lot of people in uniform; many people born in other parts of the country have been stationed in Texas at one time or another, and, for myriad reasons, have become citizens of my State. So when Americans died in the Persian Gulf and when Americans died in Somalia, Texans died. I was called upon to console the parents and spouses of Texans who had made the supreme sacrifice for our country. As a result of this experience, I have concluded that there is one additional question that I need to ask myself before committing Americans to combat and before putting Americans in harm's way. This test goes beyond whether or not we have a vital national interest and it goes beyond the question ``Will our intervention be decisive in promoting our interest?'' This test concerns my two college-aged sons and it asks ``Am I so convinced that we have a vital national security interest in Bosnia, and do I have strong enough belief that our intervention will be decisive in promoting those interests that I would be willing to send one of my own sons?'' Until I can answer that question with a very decisive yes, I cannot feel comfortable in sending someone else's son and someone else's daughter. We are told by the President that if we do not send troops to Bosnia, that we are going to undermine NATO. I submit, Mr. President, that this is an absurd notion. NATO is a defensive alliance. NATO was established in Western Europe to keep Ivan back from the gate, to keep the Soviet empire out of Western Europe. NATO has been one of the most successful alliances in history, but never, ever--not when NATO was established, and not to this point in its functioning--have we viewed NATO as an alliance which should intervene in civil wars. I submit that this is a change in the mission of NATO. To claim that a defensive security alliance will be undercut if the United States of America does not intervene in a civil war, simply has no merit and no justification. I am also very concerned about the Dole resolution. I am concerned about the fact that in the initial presentation, the President argued that we would be part of a NATO force that, on a neutral basis, would be a buffer between warring factions. My concern, under these initial circumstances, was that the cease-fire would not hold--every other cease-fire in recent history has not held--or that the peace agreement would be broken, something which has happened consistently for over 500 years. The Dole resolution only increases my concerns by injecting a new element into the mix. Since the President has no exit strategy, and since the President's plan is very specific as to how we get into Bosnia but not very specific as to how we get out, the Dole resolution imposes an exit strategy by having the United States of America take sides in this conflict, by having us arm and train one of the warring factions. I submit, Mr. President, that if we take sides in this conflict, any protection in neutrality that our troops might have had will be lost. If there were to be any security in neutrality for our troops, then agreeing to take sides in the conflict, by arming and training one side, can only serve to further endanger American lives. Paradoxically, if we were debating not to intervene in Bosnia in a peacekeeping role, but rather to be part of an effort to try to bring a balance in military power by lifting the arms embargo, by bringing the leadership of the Bosnian army to Germany to be trained by Americans, and to have an international effort to supply arms, in all probability I would be supportive of that proposal. But when we take on the role of a neutral peacekeeper, by the very nature of that role, we eliminate our capacity to take sides in the conflict, to be a source of weapons, or to be a source of training. I understand the desire to find an exit strategy, but, quite frankly, I believe the Dole resolution takes a flawed policy and goes one step further by making it more flawed. I intend to vote against the Dole resolution. Let me raise a concern that I have thought about now since Somalia, and I raise it because, by going back to Somalia, I can divorce this issue from partisanship since it was President Bush who sent troops to Somalia. We could get into an argument about how he sent them there in one role and President Clinton used them in another role, but that is a subtle argument that I am not interested in. I am very concerned about the fact that we are setting American foreign policy by channel surfing. I am very concerned about the fact that we went to Somalia for one, and only one, reason, and that was because the suffering and misery in Somalia was on television. Similar pictures could have been shown from a dozen other spots on the planet, but when one network decided to highlight Somalia, and when the public saw these pictures politicians in Washington responded by establishing a policy to intervene. I submit that you cannot, and should not, run our Nation's foreign policy as if it were social work. You cannot always be looking for some good to do around the world. We, even as powerful as we are, and even as the greatest and most powerful nation in the history of the world, cannot fix everything that is broken. We cannot right every wrong. We cannot take unto ourselves the mission of seeking out all human suffering or all injustice on the planet, with the goal that we, through our power, should solve these problems. Quite frankly, we have a lot of problems of our own; we have a lot of human suffering in our own country. But I believe that we made a mistake in Somalia, and I believe that we are making a mistake in Bosnia. I think in conducting foreign policy, you have to define your vital national security interests first. Then when something in the world threatens those predefined national security interests, you can determine whether or not, given your abilities, you can be decisive in protecting these interests. I think in the Persian Gulf the answer was, yes; our vital national interests were threatened. We had a military dictator who was developing, as we now know and have convincing evidence of, both chemical and nuclear weapons. His invasion of a neighboring country threatened the whole Middle East, it threatened Saudi Arabia, and threatened our ally, Israel. We had a vital national security interest in the Persian Gulf, and we had the capacity, through our intervention, to be decisive in promoting that interest. This, however, is not the case in Bosnia. I am very alarmed about this new approach--which is the foundation of foreign policy in the Clinton administration--of viewing foreign policy as simply an extension of social work. One final point on this subject. The cold war is over. We are debating the powers of the President to use American military power around the world. Virtually everyone in this body has served in the Congress during a period where we were in a life or death struggle. Some of our Members served, not here, but in the service of the country, when that enemy was fascism. Every Member, except the newest Members here, has served in the Congress when we were in a life-and- death twilight struggle with world communism. While that struggle was underway, either against fascism or communism, American intervention around the world as a way of promoting our national interests was the most successful policy of this century--it won the cold war. Under those circumstances, when Ivan was literally at the gate, it made sense to give the President the benefit of the doubt. As a result, we have all conditioned our foreign policy thinking in terms like ``partisanship ends at the water's edge.'' I submit that this conditioning of our thoughts comes from an era that no longer exists. It was from an era when there was a worldwide struggle for survival underway. I submit that this sort of logic does not apply in this case. Why should the President have more benefit of the doubt while engaging in police activity in Bosnia than he has while engaging in police activity in Cleveland, OH? I submit that there is no reason to give the President this additional benefit of the doubt. But even if one did, there is no evidence to substantiate the belief that we have a vital national interest at stake nor that our intervention can be decisive in promoting this interest. I am very concerned that, unless we are very lucky, the outcome of this intervention might simply be to add American names to a casualty list, but not to end the tragedy that we all want to see ended. I am going to vote against the Dole resolution. I am going to vote for the Hutchison resolution, and I am going to vote for the resolution denying funds for the deployment of troops to Bosnia. I believe that we must take the strongest stand possible. I believe that the current plan is a mistake and that it is not a logical way to promote American interests. I do not want to send troops to Bosnia. I know they are going and I understand that the votes are here to assure that the President is going to not only be able to send troops to Bosnia, but also is going to be able to cloak himself in congressional support. But I want to make it very clear. I do not support this policy. Since stopping funding is the only way to prevent the troops from being sent, I will vote to stop funding. There are those who will say, ``Well, then, are you not supporting the troops?'' The answer to this is that I am not concerned about the troops doing their job--I know they can and will do what they are ordered to do. I am concerned about the U.S. Congress doing its job. I know that our warriors will do their duty and I know they will serve proudly. I know that if this mission can be made to work then they will make it work. I know that every Member of the Senate and every Member of the House will be supportive of our troops, and I know we will give them the supplies, the weapons, and the support they need. But knowing all of this does not mean that this is not a bad decision which should not be undertaken. I oppose the deployment, and I intend to vote against it. I yield the floor. Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.

Mr. GRAMM

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I wish to begin by congratulating our dear colleague from New Hampshire. First of all, I wish to congratulate him for his leadership on this issue. I wish to congratulate him for the way that he has handled the issue. I hope that we are successful today in ending this procedure which I believe no civilized society can condone. This is not an issue that I had heard discussed before on the Senate floor until one day I came over to the floor to speak on another subject, and the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire was describing this procedure. Questions were raised as to whether someone might be offended by the description. I rose simply to make the point that if we are offended by the description of the procedure, surely we have to be offended by the fact that the procedure is occurring in America today. I joined the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire as his original cosponsor when he introduced the bill. There were only two of us to begin with on the bill. That number has grown. I do not know that I can add much to this debate. But let me try to sum up my feelings on the issue. The Dole amendment, which is now pending, removes any doubt about the fact that the life of the mother and any threat to the life of the mother is a defense for using this procedure. If the mother's life is in danger, this procedure can be used. So the question really boils down to whether a civilized society can condone this procedure when the life of the mother is not at risk. And I submit this: We have heard the description. We have heard testimony of a nurse who witnessed this procedure first-hand. It really boils down to this. This procedure is almost always used with a late-term baby, which is generally viable outside the womb. And when the baby is 3 inches away from the full protection of the Constitution, the baby's life is terminated in a violent manner that I think is objectionable in a civilized society. The question is, Are we going to stop it? I remind my colleagues, this is a vote about banning a procedure when the mother's life is not in danger. The child is delivered feet first, and when only the head of the child remains in the womb, its life is terminated--just 3 inches away from the full protection of the Constitution. This amendment bans no other type of abortion. It simply bans this procedure, which I believe is offensive, and which I believe is unacceptable in a civilized society. I hope our colleagues will vote for the Dole amendment because it formalizes what those of us who were for the Smith proposal to begin with understood, and that is, the life of the mother exception was included to begin with. This further clarifies it for someone who is concerned about that. And I think it is a legitimate concern, though I was satisfied with the original language. But with the Dole amendment adopted, I think we have a clear-cut choice. I hope our colleagues will vote for the Dole amendment, against the Boxer amendment, and then vote for the Smith proposal. I think it is the right thing to do. I am very proud to associate myself with the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire on this issue. I reserve the remainder of our time. Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.

Mr. GRAMM. I move to table the motion. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I yield as much time as he might require to the distinguished Senator from Indiana, Senator Coats.